By Sarah D. Pinsonnault
The decision of Blondin c. Blondin Leblanc, 2014 QCCS 4365, pits twelve heirs, who are also siblings, against each other with respect to the administration of their late mother’s estate. More precisely, the mandatary appointed to take care of their mother in the event of her incapacity, along with the liquidator of their mother’s estate, are being sued by several of their siblings (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) who are contesting their rendering of account and are claiming a reimbursement of $ 212,444.11 to the estate. In the case at bar, the mandatary requested the dismissal of her siblings’ action pursuant to article 165(4) C.p.c. on the basis that their action was prescribed. Taking the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs as truth, the Court found that there was a suspension of prescription and a renunciation of acquired prescription in the present case; both of which justified the dismissal of the mandatary’s motion.